Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]InfinityDT@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 8/30/99 2:45:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > bdcolen@earthlink.net writes: > > << But for now, with a Mint- 85 1.4 Nikkor about 1/3 the price of a used > Summilux 75, well....... >> > I own a 75 Summilux and while it might not be as needle-sharp as the > Nikkor 85's (had them all, incl the 1.4), the people I photograph like > the way the 'Lux makes them look as opposed to the Nikkor which would be > a perfect lens for a dermatologist. As a low-light PJ lens the 85 1.4 > is killer; as a portrait lens the 105 2.5 is more flattering. My 85 > Nikkor of choice (when I'm not carrying a Leica) is the f2, which is a > flattering people-lens at f2 or 2.8 and razor-sharp and contrasty from > f4 on down...something akin to the 90 Summicron. I came to Leica by way of Nikon about a year and a half ago, and have experience with some of these older Nikon lenses. I found the 105/2.5 to have noticeable amounts of chromatic aberration off-axis (this in common with most of my Nikkors). It wasn't just my sample, a borrowed one showed the same thing. The 85/2 wasn't just soft wide open, it transformed highlights into ugly-shaped blobs of flare. And out-of-focus items had that famous doubled Nikkor appearance. My first Leica lens was a DR Summicron: in terms of color clarity, when using Kodachrome 25, it just blew away the old Nikkors. (My thanks to Bud Cook for prompting me to try Leica. Now I'm hooked.) I still have some of my Nikkors: an old 85/1.8 manual focus, and the new 105/2-DC autofocus. Both are excellent wide open, and faster than my Leica glass (and bulkier/heavier), but otherwise not really better than my 60's Leica lenses (50/2 DR, 90/2.8 Elmarit, 135/4 Elmar, 21/3.4 SA). In my opinion. - -- Pieter Bras